As democratic circumstance is being developed, people argue equality. Education is not an exception. People want fair opportunity education. I admit open opportunity education has its advantages, but I think limited education has more benefits over the open one. Through Limited education chances, professors can give more specific lectures to students who have passed university exam, and other bad students who cannot passed the exam get another loots to success.
First, limited education offers high quality study. When a professor teaches, he should not target just a higher croup or a lower group. He should care about class members’ average degree. That is, the class which contains just good students could get high quality knowledge, but the lecture value will be decrease if bad students study together. For example, I studied physics in college. My college intended an open opportunity education system, and received some bad degree students. In the physics class, a student who couldn’t understand the lecture asked so many questions that the progress of the class couldn’t go forward.
Second, unfair opportunity education offers bad students another ways to success. There are many jobs such as professor, police, and beautician. Especially, to skilled jobs like beautician, hard college study could be waste of time. For instance, a friend of mine couldn’t study well in high school. He, however, entered an open education college, and studied a lot of things. After he graduated the college, he got a job which was a beautician. The knowledge which he had studied in college was useless to the job. Now, he regrets studying at college 4 years. He thinks if he hadn’t gone to college, he would make more money.
To summarize, a limited admission policy gives benefit to not only well studying students but also bad students. The reasons are that the formers can study more hard lessons, and the letters can be given another ways for their life. |